At least there's no remote control cable, but would be cheaper as a static model.
Hosted by Darren Baker
YouTube of Tamiya's Mk lV
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 02:57 AM UTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe-1cw39Sq0
At least there's no remote control cable, but would be cheaper as a static model.
At least there's no remote control cable, but would be cheaper as a static model.
miniflea
Joined: October 17, 2011
KitMaker: 237 posts
Armorama: 235 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:18 AM UTC
I know a lot of people here were pooh-poohing the fact that this is motorized, but this looks like a lot of fun. Want!
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:38 AM UTC
Yeah, you can get a bag of dollar store 'army men' and have fun running them over! 
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:53 AM UTC
I've gone from thinking motorised = crap to thinking.........I want one now! 
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 05:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yeah, you can get a bag of dollar store 'army men' and have fun running them over!
Oh that's a must. Loads of those little geezers are gonna get squashed.
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 07:40 AM UTC
Being motorised makes it so much easier to explain to your significant other that it's not a toy. 
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Being motorised makes it so much easier to explain to your significant other that it's not a toy.
Yeah, it's a functioning miniature replica!!
(Vroom, vroom)
armouredcharmer
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 670 posts
Armorama: 410 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:17 AM UTC
Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.
There is nothing that says you have to motorise it. It looks to have the makings of a good static model too. The footage is interesting and the Infantry look good as well.
I'll be interested to see the comparison with the Takom kit when it come along.
Al
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 09:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Why motorized ?,With Takom about to bring out versions of their own i know which i`d rather have,having bought (and binned!) the appalling Emhar version i`d still like one for the stash.
I just can`t bring myself to buy something that i consider a fancy toy.
Why not? If it's accurate (and it does look pretty accurate and non toy like) then I think it's nice to have a MkIV that moves.
Also it moves at scale speed too which is pretty cool.
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 12:25 PM UTC
AFVFan
Joined: May 17, 2012
KitMaker: 1,980 posts
Armorama: 1,571 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 02:16 PM UTC
They need to put Roomba technology in it so you don't need to keep picking it up and turning it around.
Darson
Joined: June 14, 2005
KitMaker: 247 posts
Armorama: 129 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 06:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
There is nothing that says you have to motorise it. It looks to have the makings of a good static model too. The footage is interesting and the Infantry look good as well.
I'll be interested to see the comparison with the Takom kit when it come along.
Al
Al I would be quite happy to buy it and leave the engine out and have it as a static kit, it's just the premium I will have to pay for the motorization that bugs me. Why on earth Tamiya don't release a static (cheaper) version is beyond me.
I agree with you on the side by side comparison with the Takom kit, because both look to be great kits.
Darren
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 06:44 PM UTC
Bummer! It's neither radio nor remote control. You just turn it on and let it run in a straight line until it either hits an obstacle or the battery dies. Can't even turn or steer. Even though it looks like a competent model, motorizing it really is just a silly toy-like gimmick. I can go to the dollar store and buy a toy that will do the same thing - it just won't look as nice. What was Mr. T thinking? 
(Although if it's cheaper than Takom I'll probably still get one)
(Although if it's cheaper than Takom I'll probably still get one)
Agamemnon2
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 155 posts
Armorama: 149 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 08:44 PM UTC
Looking at the sprue pictures, I think there's a pair of regular-plastic idlers and sprockets on the one with the wheels, so you don't have to put in the gears if you don't want to. I think the provisions for motorization leave the underside of the tracks unrealistic, so if you want to model one untracked or something, the Friul set might be required (and one might have to scratch-build things like the transmission). Though really, for those kind of things, waiting and seeing how the Takom looks might be even better.
If you want to have it more or less in an operating condition, the job looks pretty simple, even covering the switch hole on the bottom is probably not required, given how small and out of the way it is. Light years ahead of the Emhar, too.
If you want to have it more or less in an operating condition, the job looks pretty simple, even covering the switch hole on the bottom is probably not required, given how small and out of the way it is. Light years ahead of the Emhar, too.
ironhull
Joined: November 23, 2013
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 134 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 02:47 AM UTC
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 03:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Bummer! It's neither radio nor remote control. You just turn it on and let it run in a straight line until it either hits an obstacle or the battery dies. Can't even turn or steer. Even though it looks like a competent model, motorizing it really is just a silly toy-like gimmick. I can go to the dollar store and buy a toy that will do the same thing - it just won't look as nice. What was Mr. T thinking?
Motorizing anything inevitably means a compromise with the scale and accuracy - far too gimmicky IMO....
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 04:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You are right.
See on bottom left sprue
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10271341b9/30/9
Bye
Pierantonio
So it is and hadn't noticed that before.
Beastmaster
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 04:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Looking at the sprue pictures, I think there's a pair of regular-plastic idlers and sprockets on the one with the wheels, so you don't have to put in the gears if you don't want to. I think the provisions for motorization leave the underside of the tracks unrealistic, so if you want to model one untracked or something, the Friul set might be required (and one might have to scratch-build things like the transmission). Though really, for those kind of things, waiting and seeing how the Takom looks might be even better.
If you want to have it more or less in an operating condition, the job looks pretty simple, even covering the switch hole on the bottom is probably not required, given how small and out of the way it is. Light years ahead of the Emhar, too.
Can't say the underside of the tracks look unrealistic to me (from the pictures I've seen anyway).
Agamemnon2
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 155 posts
Armorama: 149 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 09:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Can't say the underside of the tracks look unrealistic to me (from the pictures I've seen anyway).
You might be right there, I can't find a good enough of a photo now to back up that earlier hunch, and certainly the sprocket they use for the gearbox and motor looks geometrically pretty similar to the real one, so it could be that the Tamiya tracks are accurate on that front as well.
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 11:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Motorizing anything inevitably means a compromise with the scale and accuracy - far too gimmicky IMO....
So does replicating a riveted and bolted metal object in plastic at 1/35 size in a kit form that can be assembled by solvent cement without breaking apart before it is finished. So, when we find an axle that is too large, a section that isn't square, or a plate that is too thick, what are people going to say? My guess is that in the case of this kit some folks will ascribe EVERY departure from true fidelity to "gimmicky motorization" . . . Because that's what they want to believe.
KL
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 06:28 PM UTC
The motorization is gimmicky, although the model may well be (within acceptable tolerances) accurate and in scale. The thing is, back in the early seventies, Tamiya had some inexpensive cable remote control kits, but those had two motors - one for each track, and you could forward, reverse, and turn. You were tethered to the tank, but at least it was more fun than switching on the motor and just letting the tank run away from you.
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 08:16 PM UTC
Couldn't Tamiya market the kit with small demons inside who would follow your shouted instructions?
The_musings_of_NBNoG
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 520 posts
Armorama: 516 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 08:44 PM UTC
What was really cool is
Testor's No.103 104, 105...
got to screen capture a couple of cool shots of the BMPT
there is one place where you can see all the sprues, laid out...
and there is a lot of difference between the new BMPT and their T-90.
good to see... !
Testor's No.103 104, 105...
got to screen capture a couple of cool shots of the BMPT
there is one place where you can see all the sprues, laid out...
and there is a lot of difference between the new BMPT and their T-90.
good to see... !
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 - 10:08 PM UTC
Methinks some bright sparks will indeed fit twin motors, with servos and radio gear, in order to get a 1:35 tank that CAN be steered! Shouldn't bee too hard.
Now we need to see the plastic reach the hands of a competent reviewer who can check all the vital measurements...
Now we need to see the plastic reach the hands of a competent reviewer who can check all the vital measurements...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.